Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FACTS:
Bands Refuse Removal v. Borough of Fair Lawn, 163 A.2d 465 (1960), Superior
Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
o
o
o
o
PROCEDURE:
o
o
o
o
o
o
ISSUE:
Procedural Issue(s) Was the procedural conduct of the trial a denial of due
process?
1. Was the conduct of the trial judge beyond the primary function of
impartiality?
a. Can the court admit surprise witnesses when the witnesses have
not been named?
b. Can the court add new issues?
Substantive Issue(s)
Civil Procedure
2. Is a shift in cause of action in this pleading permissible?
HOLDING:
REASONING:
1. Yes, overstepped bounds of judicial inquiry and thereby denied due process.
1a/b. No. 2. Yes.
o
NOTES:
Verdict in favor of reversed and remanded for full trial re: validity of contract
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Civil Procedure
(2) Matters for Consideration (M): For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or
to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or
more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party
claims. When ordering a separate trial, the court must preserve any
federal right to a jury trial. 42(b)
Fed.R.Civ.P. 53 appointing amicus curaie to present evidence,
subpoena/examine, submit briefs
Fed.R.Civ.P. 38-52 trial held
Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(a); 58 judgment entered
Fed.R.App.P. 3; 4 appeal taken
From Grobart v. Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures: Alternative and
hypothetical claims can be attacked in a single answer or motion; inconsistent
affirmative defenses may be dealt with in a single reply or motion, but shifting
causes of action in successive pleading will completely block the purpose of all
pleading, i.e. getting to an issue or issues where one party asserts the
affirmative and the other the negative on a question or questions of law or of
fact. plaintiffs are permitted to litigate only the matters asserted in their
proof of claim.
Questions: Is the Grobart rule an issue of law or a procedural issue? Isnt
Supreme Court of NJ > Superior Court of NJ so why did Superior Court in this
case essentially ignore the issue? What better way to bring up the fraud in
bidding issue? (Pretrial hearing?)